Literature DB >> 22534053

Cardiologist concordance with the American College of Cardiology appropriate use criteria for cardiac testing in patients with coronary artery disease.

Fay Y Lin1, Lisa R Rosenbaum, Dan Gebow, Robert J Kim, Michael J Wolk, Manesh R Patel, Allison M Dunning, Troy M Labounty, Millie J Gomez, Leslee J Shaw, Jagat Narula, Pamela S Douglas, Subha V Raman, Daniel S Berman, James K Min.   

Abstract

The American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) were developed to guide use of myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography (MPS), stress echocardiography, and cardiac computed tomographic angiography (CCTA). To date, cardiologist application of AUC from a patient-based multiprocedure perspective has not been evaluated. A Web-based survey of 15 clinical vignettes spanning a wide spectrum of indications for MPS, STE, and CCTA in coronary artery disease was administered to cardiologists who rated the ordered test as appropriate, inappropriate, or uncertain by AUC application and suggested a preferred alternative imaging procedure, if any. In total 129 cardiologists responded to the survey (mean age 49.5 years, board certification for MPS 65%, echocardiography 39%, CCTA 32%). Cardiologists agreed with published AUC ratings 65% of the time, with differences in all categories (appropriate, 50% vs 53%; inappropriate, 42% vs 20%; uncertain, 9% vs 27%, p <0.0001 for all comparisons). Physician age, practice type, or board certification in MPS or echocardiography had no effect on concordance with AUC ratings, with slightly higher agreement for those board certified in CCTA (68% vs 64%, p = 0.04). Cardiologist procedure preference was positively associated with active clinical interpretation of MPS and CCTA (p = 0.03 for the 2 comparisons) but not for ownership of the respective imaging equipment. In conclusion, cardiologist agreement with published AUC ratings is generally high, although physicians classify more uncertain indications as inappropriate. Active clinical interpretation of a procedure contributes most to increased procedure preference.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22534053     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.03.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  6 in total

1.  Comparing two methods for determining appropriateness of myocardial perfusion imaging: Criteria from the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American College of Radiology.

Authors:  Anastasiya Bagrova; Ali Y Alsamarah; David E Winchester
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 5.952

2.  Can physicians identify inappropriate nuclear stress tests? An examination of inter-rater reliability for the 2009 appropriate use criteria for radionuclide imaging.

Authors:  Siqin Ye; LeRoy E Rabbani; Christopher R Kelly; Maureen R Kelly; Matthew Lewis; Yehuda Paz; Clara L Peck; Shaline Rao; Sabahat Bokhari; Shepard D Weiner; Andrew J Einstein
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2015-01-06

3.  Choosing wisely or beyond the guidelines.

Authors:  M-J de Boer; E E van der Wall
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 2.380

Review 4.  Outcomes after inappropriate nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Islam Y Elgendy; Ahmed Mahmoud; Jonathan J Shuster; Rami Doukky; David E Winchester
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-08-08       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  Applicability of the Appropriate use Criteria for Myocardial Perfusion Scintigraphy.

Authors:  Anderson de Oliveira; Maria Fernanda Rezende; Renato Corrêa; Rodrigo Mousinho; Jader Cunha Azevedo; Sandra Marina Miranda; Aline Ribeiro Oliveira; Ricardo Fraga Gutterres; Evandro Tinoco Mesquita; Cláudio Tinoco Mesquita
Journal:  Arq Bras Cardiol       Date:  2014-09-23       Impact factor: 2.000

6.  Practice-Level Variation in Outpatient Cardiac Care and Association With Outcomes.

Authors:  Jeffrey D Clough; Rahul Rajkumar; Matthew T Crim; Lesli S Ott; Nihar R Desai; Patrick H Conway; Sha Maresh; Daver C Kahvecioglu; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 5.501

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.